"...Japan's decision-making process was more about actual combat performance and interoperability with the US and other neighbouring allied states than about industrial benefits."

They could have had anything they wanted except the F-22 and they picked the F-35. They fielded an effective force the last time they were at war although it did have some issues. They've been working with the US for 60+ years and have been exposed to ideas from may other effective air forces. They field the F-15 and a version of the F-16.

They did license builds of the F-15 and others so they likely could have had a license build of anything they wanted except the F-22 and maybe the F-35.

Given all the above how is it spun that the F-35 isn't the best out there except for the F-22 A2A?

Given this set of requirements as apparently now being publicly revealed, I'm surprised why Boeing didn't offer an F-15EJ variant similar to the SG variant, yet perhaps with the latest updates including DEWS management suite and possibly new displays among others.

Such an offering would seem have best qualified for the contest, at least according to the listed set of requirements. The Super Hornet however, while being a very affordable and modern strike fighter just doesn't seem to fit said requirements as well as would have said, an advanced F-15E model.

And given the first noted requirement listed above as being 'combat performance', that would have to have been a major bonus for said F-15EJ proposal, as it's a well-proven and already a mature aircraft for the most part, whereas the F-35 has many more years of uncertain IOT&E to go just for the entry block III, let alone any potential follow-on block IV capability.

Because, just maybe, a fourth generation update was not considered by the Japanese as being sufficient. You've basically dismissed everybody's counter arguments on the SE up to this point, maybe you might want to consider they actually hold some merit.

Or you can continue to believe that the F-15SE is somehow makes for a superior capability despite good evidence otherwise. I mean you must know something that the all these nations and defense industries must be missing.

There's no evidence to suggest Japan did not consider a 4th+ generation update as a viable option. If not, then then the Super Hornet and EF Typhoon would have never been contenders in the first place. I think your own pre-conceived bias and prejudice is what's getting in the way of your arguments.

But if you can't survive long enough to deliver that larger payload then your superior T/W and range mean nothing, and how much time does any jet spend at top speed in battle. I am sure you could count the minutes on one hand.

alloycowboy wrote:The question is what can a F-15EJ or F-15SE do that an F-35 can't?

What does an F-15EJ bring to the table that Japan's fleet of 200+ F-15J's don't already? Those F-15J's are already being upgraded and I expect they'll see AESA radars and the majority of the capabilities advanced F-15's use anyway. What does an extra 2 operational squadrons of a similar capability really provide?

2 squadrons of VLO "sniper" fighters on the other hand, operating in concert with advanced F-15 variants, mirroring what the USAF are going to do with their big radar, big EW and large missile load "Golden Eagles" operating behind "sniper" F-22's, brings an entirely new and rather revolutionary capability to the table, IMHO and such tactics, operating in concert with other Japanese elements including AEGIS Destroyers, Patriot PAC-3 etc seems to offer a LOT more for Japan's air defence than an additional handful of legacy fighters.

I recommend Norman Friedman's book on network centric warfare to anyone who wants to understand these issues.

I'll use an example from the book. The US Navy had issues with Soviet bombers launching missiles at carriers in any war scenario. When the bomber was the slow short ranged Badger a single carrier with 24 F-14's was ok. When the Backfire with speed and the range to approach on different axes appeared they had a real problem. The only solution was to group carriers and provide each task force with more interceptors. Or, they could build an interceptor with more speed and range than the F-14. In the end they just used networking to get a better idea of where the Backfires were so they could deploy the F-14's on the proper threat axis.

That's been the trend for 100 years and it's laughable to think planes like the Silent Eagle or Typhoon come anywhere near the F-35 in real world capability. The F-35 sacrifices raw performance to get better range on internal fuel (VLO issue with EFTs). If you read the book or figure out how the Western forces fight today the F-35 makes a lot of sense.

To continue the analogy it would be like arguing for the Vought Super Crusader over the F-14 because the Super Crusader had better kinematics. Just ignore endurance, range, sensors, and weapons.

The Silent Eagle is an optimized platform which I really like but it's still a platform. The F-35 is a node in the network. In some ways it's a really boring aircraft but it should be more effective than the exciting F-15SE.

Well said, Shingen. The F-35 does not impress the way an F-22 impresses, it doesn't supercruise, it's certainly not beautiful visually and it doesn't super maneuver like SU-35. It's also had more than its share of development problems, due to making one air frame fit three disparate roles.

However, it is - first and foremost - stealthy. It has arguably the worlds best avionics suite. It's speed and maneuverability are like the teens series. It has better internal fuel range than the teens. It has sensor fusion and data sharing. The stealth and avionics alone will make this an extremely formidable and survivable aircraft for decades. And it's here and in production, unlike everyone's (including mine) ideal imaginary aircraft. That's reality. And nations need to buy real aircraft, not imaginary ones.